In this commentary, we discuss an important pattern of results in the literature on the neural basis of expertise: (a) decrease of cerebral activation at the beginning of acquisition of expertise and (b) functional cerebral reorganization as a consequence of years of practice. We show how these two results can be integrated with the neural reuse framework.

Functional fingerprints aggregate over heterogeneous tasks, protocols, and controls. The appearance of functional diversity might be explained by task heterogeneity and conceptual imprecision.

Anderson (2014) proposes a bottom-up approach to cognitive ontology revision: Neuroscientists should revise their taxonomies of cognitive constructs on the basis of brain activation patterns across many tasks. We argue that such bottom-up proposal is bound to commit a mistake of reification: It treats the abstract mathematical entities uncovered by dimension reduction techniques as if they were real psychological entities.

Multivariate pattern analysis can address many of the challenges for cognitive neuroscience highlighted in After Phrenology (Anderson 2014) by illuminating the information content of brain regions and by providing insight into whether functional overlap reflects the recruitment of common or distinct computational mechanisms. Further, failing to consider submaximal but reliable population responses can lead to an overly modular account of brain function.

The hypothesis that highly overlapping networks underlie brain functions (neural reuse) is decisively supported by three decades of multisensory research. Multisensory areas process information from more than one sensory modality and therefore represent the best examples of neural reuse. Recent evidence of multisensory processing in primary visual cortices further indicates that neural reuse is a basic feature of the brain.

Logic is a fundamental reason why computational accounts of the mind have failed. Combinatorial complexity preventing computational accounts is equivalent to the Gödelian incompleteness of logic. The mind is not logical, but only logical states and processes in the mind are accessible to subjective consciousness. For this reason, intuitions of psychologists, cognitive scientists, and mathematicians modeling the mind are biased toward logic. This is also true about the changes proposed in After Phrenology (Anderson 2014).

It is taken for granted that the brain is composed of a set of networks. But what is a brain network? How should we characterize them? Adding to Anderson's (2014) persuasive anti-modular framework, I propose that (1) networks do not have a single, unique function; (2) networks are highly overlapping and not disjoint; and (3) tasks reconfigure networks found at rest.

To be successful, the research agenda for a novel control view of cognition should foresee more detailed, computationally specified process models of cognitive operations including higher cognition. These models should cover all domains of cognition, including those cognitive abilities that can be characterized as online interactive loops and detached forms of cognition that depend on internally generated neuronal processing.

Although meta-analytic neuroimaging studies demonstrate a relative lack of specificity in the brain, this evidence may be the result of limits inherent to these types of studies. From this perspective, we review recent findings that suggest that brain function is most appropriately categorized according to the computational capacity of each brain system, rather than the specific task states that elicit its activity.

If neural reuse is true, then: (1) fully escaping phrenology will eventually require an even less brain-centric and mechanistic cognitive neuroscience that focuses on relations and interactions between brain, body, and environment at many different scales and levels across both space and time, and (2) although scientific psychology must be heavily revised, the autonomy and irreducibility of folk psychology are assured.

Neural reuse allegedly stands in stark contrast against a modular view of the brain. However, the development of unique modularity algorithms in network science has provided the means to identify functionally cooperating, specialized subsystems in a way that remains consistent with the neural reuse view and offers a set of rigorous tools to fully engage in Anderson's (2014) research program.

Consistent with neural reuse theory, empirical tests of the related “scaffolding” principle of abstract concept development show that higher-level concepts “reuse” and are built upon fundamental motives such as survival, safety, and consumption. This produces mutual influence between the two levels, with far-ranging impacts from consumer behavior to political attitudes.

In this reply to reviewers, I argue that, although reforming the taxonomy of psychology will lead to great insights in the cognitive sciences, it will not result in 1:1 structure-function mappings in the brain; we should expect to see a great deal of irreducible functional diversity in the brain at multiple spatial scales. I further clarify both the promise and the limitations of the analytic techniques for capturing functional diversity and interrogating the taxonomy of psychology; describe the ways in which neural reuse can help us understand human development; further explore the ways in which my proposals for integrating psychology, neuroscience, and evolutionary biology differ from the approach exemplified by contemporary evolutionary psychology; and lay out some new and hopefully interesting avenues for future research.

This paper seeks to make a theoretical and empirical case for the importance of differentiated identities for group function. Research on groups has found that groups sometimes perform better and other times perform worse than the sum of their individual members. Differentiation of selves is a crucial moderator. We propose a heuristic framework that divides formation of work or task groups into two steps. One step emphasizes shared common identity and promotes emotional bonds. In the other step, which we emphasize, group members take increasingly differentiated roles that improve performance through specialization, moral responsibility, and efficiency. Pathologies of groups (e.g., social loafing, depletion of shared resources/commons dilemmas, failure to pool information, groupthink) are linked to submerging the individual self in the group. These pathologies are decreased when selves are differentiated, such as by individual rewards, individual competition, accountability, responsibility, and public identification. Differentiating individual selves contributes to many of the best outcomes of groups, such as with social facilitation, wisdom-of-crowds effects, and division of labor. Anonymous confidentiality may hamper differentiation by allowing people to blend into the group (so that selfish or lazy efforts are not punished), but it may also facilitate differentiation by enabling people to think and judge without pressure to conform. Acquiring a unique role within the group can promote belongingness by making oneself irreplaceable.

Informed by our interdisciplinary research program on collaborative recall, we argue that Baumeister et al. should consider: (1) group success as a balance between differentiation and integration (not differentiation alone); (2) variation in constellations of people and processes within and across groups; and (3) nuanced measurement of what people bring to, do in, and get out of groups.

Although we agree that both identification and differentiation play a key role in explaining individual behaviour in groups, we suggest that (1) cohesion and differentiation should be better articulated, (2) the proposal carries implicit value choices that are not necessarily universal, and (3) the success of a group in shaping individual behaviour should refer to the values of individual members.

In this commentary, we apply the authors' view to small groups consisting of two people who are in a committed romantic relationship. Our focus is on the circumstances that make it more likely that people will stay within such a group and minimize the chances that they will replace their partner. In our restless society, such ongoing replacement is a pressing issue.

Baumeister et al. depart from self-theories that contrast the psychology of the group with the psychology of the individual by considering how differentiated identities further collective interests. In concert with Deviance Regulation Theory, their framework offers a foundation for predicting the reward and punishment contingencies that will help groups function as more than the sum of their parts.

Failure to distinguish between statistical effects and genuine social interaction may lead to unwarranted conclusions about the role of self-differentiation in group function. We offer an introduction to these issues from the perspective of recent research on collaborative cognition.